Of Course Wind Turbines Affect House Values, It’s Common Sense!

December 20, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Industry criticizes wind turbine reportHomeNews
by Jennifer Paterson18 Dec 2014

Is a $78,000 gingerbread house worth the investment?
The Christmas season is well underway: lights strung up outside the house, stockings hanging over the fireplace and the shopping (almost) done. It’s the time of year to take a break from your real estate investments – unless you are investing in the one house with building materials undoubtedly tastier than bricks and mortar: the gingerbread house.
Daily Market Update
Calgary resales market is ‘balanced’ says Conference Board… TD Economics forecasts slowdown in new Alberta jobs… Police uncover mortgage fraud… Employment insurance stable…
A recent study by the University of Guelph, which found wind turbines do not have an impact on nearby property values, might have earned a big sigh of relief from investors – but the study’s results have been strongly criticized by members of the real estate industry.

“I have had several deals fall apart in this area because, in the appraisal report, it has been mentioned that there are windmills visible or adjacent to the property and, once a lender gets wind of that (forgive the pun), they will not fund a mortgage,” said Angela Jenkins, a mortgage agent at Dominion Lending Centres, who lives and works in the Melancthon region, where the study was conducted.

“If a person cannot get financing due to windmills, then how can this be a positive thing?”

The study, which was published this month in the Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, analyzed more than 7,000 home and farm sales in the area, and found that at least 1,000 of these were sold more than once, some several times.

John Leonard Goodwin, who has been a real estate broker for more than 10 years in the Grand Bend, Ont. market, asserted that wind turbines absolutely do affect property values. “Turbines complicate your property enjoyment, period,” he said. “That alone spells depreciated value(s).

“Turbines should be in remote, unpopulated locations. To all the folks who have turbines on their property: Enjoy your $18,000 per turbine per year, because you will be giving most of the lease payments back (in much lower property value) when you sell.

“These monsters are very bad for Ontario,” he continued. “We all pay to subsidize the electricity they produce and they will also cause a significant loss of real estate value.”

Lynn Stein, a sales representative at Hartford and Stein Real Estate, lives and sells real estate in Prince Edward County, where a large-scale wind turbine project is slated to begin.

“The turbines that are proposed here are quite large,” she said. “The majority of the population here very clearly doesn’t want them.

“Put simply, if you were to buy your future home, given the choice, would you buy where you would have noise, shadow flicker, an industrial view, potential health issues caused by the turbines, and the possibility of a very difficult resale, or would you spend your money elsewhere?”

Wind Industry is a Cesspool of Corruption, Collusion, and Coercion!

December 18, 2014 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Crooks & Corruption Rule: What is it with the Wind Industry?

December 18, 2014 by stopthesethings

The wind industry seems to attract a particular class of bloke, in much the same way that the Prohibition era drew lots of heavy-set Italians to the Mob.

Maybe that seemingly endless stream of massive subsidies filched from taxpayers and power consumers generates the same allure as festering dung does for swarms of flies?

Whatever it is, the whiff that surrounds the wind industry has attracted (and continues to attract) a class that has no hesitation lying, cheating, stealing and even bonking their way to the easy loot on offer.

The Italian Mob were in on the wind power fraud from the get-go: applying their considerable (and perfectly applicable) skills – leading the European wind power fraud, with what economists call “first-mover-advantage” (see our post here).

We’ve reported on just how rotten the wind industry is – from top to bottom – and whether it’s bribery and fraud; vote rigging scandals; tax fraud; investor fraud or REC fraud – wind weasels set a uniform standard that would make most businessman blush.

The crooks involved – and the corruption, lies thuggery and deceit that follow them – are uniform across the globe.

Wind power outfits in Taiwan – faced with a pesky community backlash – sent the muscle in and beat the protesters to a bloody pulp (see our posts here and here).

The Thais aren’t much better.

In Australia, Thai outfit RATCH has been lying to, bullying and threatening communities far and wide for years (see our posts here and here andhere).

In previous posts we’ve looked at how the goons that work for RATCH didn’t hesitate to invent a character – Frank Bestic – in a half-cunning attempt to infiltrate their opponents at Collector and elsewhere – see our posts here and here and here.

RATCH also teamed up with one of Queensland’s “white-shoe-brigade“, John Morris – in a joint plan to destroy the Atherton Tablelands by spearing 60 odd turbines into a patch of pristine wilderness on top of Mt Emerald – a move, quite rightly, opposed by 92% of locals (see our post here).

Morris – a five-star resort owner who has generously wined, dined and otherwise accommodated his mate, LNP pollie, David Kempton (who holds a rabid interest in the project getting approved, despite the fact that his own electorate is miles away) – has pulled out all stops to smooth the way to development approval (see our post here).

Faced with the inevitable community backlash to yet another pointless economic, environmental and public health disaster, the Queensland Planning Minister, Jeff Seeney has called “time-out”; declining to approve the project, as demanded by RATCH and Morris.

Morris – facing the uncharacteristic prospect of defeat – has turned to bullying and threatening the Planning Minister to ensure a speedy decision in his and RATCH’s favour: demanding that the Planning Minister make a decision no later than tomorrow (ie 19 December 2014) (see this article).

RATCH and Morris have shown all the care and restraint we’ve come to expect from the wind industry and its parasites: an “industry” that has absolutely no interest in producing meaningful power or “saving” the planet. Take away the promise of $50 billion in subsidies from the REC Tax on power consumers (see our post here) and this lot would will disappear in a heartbeat (see our post here).

RATCH shares its Thai roots with another Thai wind power outfit that owes its existence to the Thai Military Junta – “Wind Energy Holdings”.

Wind Energy Holdings has hit the news recently, as its hitherto-hot-shot head, Nopporn Suppipat has been caught with his fingers in the till. Having been caught – he’s acted with all the honour we’ve come to expect from wind weasels, wherever they ply their trade: he’s bolted!

Here’s The Wall Street Journal laying out an all too familiar wind industry tale.

Co-chief of Thailand’s Wind Energy a fugitive, say police
The Wall Street Journal
Warangkana Chomchuen and James Hookway
18 December 2014

UNTIL a few weeks ago, Nopporn Suppipat was a rising star in Thailand’s corporate scene.

The 43-year-old entrepreneur was profiled in local magazines, touted as a leader in alternative energy, and was firming up plans for a multi-billion-dollar initial public offering of the wind-power company he helped lead, Wind Energy Holding.

Now police say he has left the country to avoid arrest on accusations of extortion and insulting the monarchy, and Wind Energy said he had stepped down as co-chief executive.

The company’s IPO plans are on hold as it reorganises, according to source.

In a telephone interview from an undisclosed location, Mr Nopporn said he had done nothing wrong, yet he feared he might never be able to return to Thailand.

Mr Nopporn said his fall from grace was unexpected. He said his problems dated from the aftermath of Asia’s financial crisis in the late 1990s.

To shore up his personal finances, Mr Nopporn said, he had borrowed 17 million baht, the equivalent of about $630,000 today, from Gryphon International Holding, where he was then the largest shareholder, although had since divested himself of all of his shares.

Mr Nopporn’s business partners, though, filed an embezzlement complaint against him with the police, who forwarded to public prosecutors.

He arranged to pay the money back in instalments, finally settling the outstanding sum in court in 2012, according to a court document.

Most of his partners then agreed to settle the dispute, the document shows. However, Mr Nopporn said, one partner, Bundit Chotewitthayakul, refused to withdraw his lawsuit.

With preparations for an IPO for Wind Energy beginning to get off the ground, Mr Nopporn said, earlier this year he had offered Mr Bundit 20 million baht to withdraw his complaint.

According to Mr Nopporn, Mr Bundit then asked for 100 million baht. Mr Bundit’s lawyer said his client declined to comment.

“I wanted to have a clean slate and I can afford it,” Mr Nopporn said.

Mr Nopporn said he then hired a negotiator to try to reach a lower settlement with Mr Bundit. Police said the negotiator then hired three brothers of the estranged wife of Thailand’s heir to the crown, who has since relinquished her royal title, to increase pressure on Mr Bundit. From that point, Mr Nopporn’s problems took a turn for the worse.

The brothers were arrested and accused of defaming the monarchy by exploiting their royal ties for personal gain, among other offences, as police investigators stepped up an anticorruption campaign that also implicated senior police officials.

The police officials, who have been arrested and accused of similar crimes, and the brothers are now in police custody.

It is unclear whether they entered pleas or whether they have legal representation.

Thailand has some of the world’s most severe lese majeste laws, allowing for prison sentences of up to 15 years.

With the investigation widening, Mr Nopporn said he chose to leave Thailand before an arrest warrant was issued alleging he committed lese majeste by contracting the former princess’s brothers, in addition to the police’s accusation that he attempted to extort Mr Bundit. The company has appointed Emma Collins as its sole chief executive; she was co-chief with Mr Nopporn.

A spokesman for Wind Energy said it was reviewing its options for an IPO, while the company said in a written statement that the criminal allegations against Mr Nopporn had nothing to do with Wind Energy.
The Wall Street Journal

STT loves the way the (unnamed) spokesman for Wind Energy Holdings was quick to cut their “star” boss loose: proving that there really is no honour amongst thieves!

Now – some might think that corporate “standards” could be expected to slip in a country run by a band of “brass-hats” – but things don’t get any better even where the outfit is Denmark’s leading (but woefully struggling) fan maker, Vestas.

Vestas set the benchmark a while back – true to form, it keeps lying and cheating its way into trouble wherever it goes.

While Vestas threw $millions at the Greens and other astro-turfing, eco-fascist outfits in Australia (and elsewhere) – employing them as spruikers for its well-oiled (but nauseating) “Act on Facts” propaganda campaign – it got belted in the US earlier this year for failing to give its own (and potential) investors the very sort of facts, upon which share market punters and free markets depend.

Consistent with Vesta’s “fast-and-loose” with the “truth” style of doing business, it was caught out cooking its books and lying to the markets about its profitability in an effort to take investors for a ride. That little subterfuge cost it a lazy $5 million.

Vestas reaches conditional settlement on US lawsuit for $5 million
Wind Power Monthly
James Quilter
27 June 2014

UNITED STATES: Vestas said it has conditionally settled a lawsuit from a pension fund claiming the company issued false information regarding its revenue and earnings.

The lawsuit originates from 2011 and alleged false reporting was made between October 2009 and October 2010.

Vestas said $5 million will be paid out to the plaintiffs. It denies any wrongdoing and said it was making the payment “in order to end the substantial expenses, burdens and uncertainties associated with a continued litigation in the USA”.

The settlement is still subject to approval by the US courts.

Speaking about the decision, Vestas chairman Bert Nordberg said: “We look forward to putting this case behind us, which will allow us to continue our focus on the operation of the business to the benefit of our customers and our owners.”

The 2009-2010 period represents a troubled time for Vestas. At the end of 2010 company changed its accounting procedures.

Deminor Recovery Services, a company targeting Vestas on behalf of disgruntled investors, has been focusing on this change, suggesting Vestas used it to shift around 1.8GW of orders from the 2009 results into 2010 figures.
Wind Power Monthly

Shining a Light On An Unfair Process…..Wind Turbines Do Harm Neighbours!

December 16, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Sign a shitty turbine contract – everyone loses

Posted on 12/15/2014 by windaction

by Harvey Wrightman
I had a quick read of the recently published paper, part of a continuing project-thesis series for students in a graduate program at Western overseen by Dr. Jamie Baxter. I gather that Baxter originally viewed wind projects as a benign source of green energy and didn’t anticipate the more complex problems of the projects. I think most of us started from a similar position. Baxter’s students attended some of the open house ‘sessions’ put on by the wind companies in Adelaide-Metcalfe. We were there also and you can imagine the fireworks that transpired. It was eye-opening for the students, that’s for sure. While I hardly think we need academic research into the cause of the resistance to wind projects, it may be a good idea to get it down formally somehow. I can’t write a peer-review; but, I can tell him how to make the process logical and fair. First, they must ditch the idea of bringing everyone (community, wind developers, government) together, providing them tools for discussion, and making some sort of consensus decision. This is just utopian BS that will please the wind fraudsters and fail the people who are sentenced to live there. You have to get the tools to the individuals, who will be targeted by the landmen, AND their neighbours. Wind companies don’t need any help.

It hardly matters how people rationalize or perceive their real-estate position once a wind project arrives, the over-riding fact is that it is an industrial development and such developments have impacts on all of the properties – lots of negative factors for everyone to share in. In the west Middlesex and north Lambton projects what is very interesting is that many of the large farm operators have refused to sign. A family member of one such operation said to a wind company rep, “What you’re offering is not enough for what we’re giving up. Double your offer and we’ll negotiate.” This came at 3 AM after a night of discussions. No contract was signed. Wind reps left with empty pockets and groggy, sore heads. There’s a big empty space along 402 west of Strathroy that the wind companies badly wanted, but did not get. This is repeated elsewhere in Middlesex and Lambton.

I only wish more farmers had been able to figure it out so clearly before it was too late.

So, lacking that sort of common sense on a community level, I have 2 recommendations:

Treat the wind companies like the franchise companies – where any contract signed between company and franchisee must have written independent legal advice (ILA) provided to the franchisee – think about who runs all those variety stores and puts in ungodly hours of time – immigrants who may have left very repressive regimes and are not inclined to buck the system here. Wind companies employ big city lawyers who write draconian 50+ page leases that are all in their favour. Then they get unlicensed, unregulated ‘persons’ – euphemistically called ‘landmen’ – who are trained in the ‘art’ of hard-sell, and set lose these mercenaries on rural residents who are not skilled enough to properly read and understand what they are pressured to sign. Wind contracts always container an exemption for the ‘Family Law Act’, otherwise an ILA would be needed.This issue arose in the OEB hearing into the Nextera-Bornish/Adelaide/Jericho transmission line. Curiously the land sale for the substation (~20 acres) had to have an ILA and it was filed as evidence in the OEB hearing. We argued that the same terms should apply to the property easements they needed for the line as they are signed in perpetuity. But Nextera protested and the OEB basically said, “Don’t worry, we won’t make you do that.”
Now, I have to hold my nose when I say this, but if public policy demands that wind projects be built (and that’s what the GEA is all about), then unsigned residents in the area are effectively having their amenity taken away and that means a diminution of property value. So, we have a process for expropriation. It provides for independent property appraisal and stipulates that the subject owner of the property must be made ‘whole’ again – a fancy way of saying that not only shall fair and just value for the property be established, but damages (moving, etc.) must be considered and appraised by the same independent appraiser. It’s not a pretty process, but it’s a whole lot better than “Good-bye and go to hell,” which is all we hear from the wind companies or the government now.

From the text of the study, it sounds like the interview base is not broad enough. It also falls into the trap of characterizing people as “new” or “old” to the area. This is another way of stereotyping people as rural (farmer) or urban (NIMBY). It just isn’t that simple. Many of the small lot owners are from local families – therein is the source of tension. It’s not necessarily a matter of ruralness. Also, the main property devaluation effect will be to the severed lots and the farm properties that are less suitable for cropping. Good workable land is still in high demand, turbines or not, though I would say there is a better and growing market for land that is not encumbered with a lease. Wind leases bring with them a very nasty tenant who can do what he wants when he wants and you can’t evict him. Leaseholders have found that out.

I’m left wondering about the solutions Baxter et al are seeking to the wind project strife – like suggesting better dialogue on a larger, community level (oh God, not more kindergarten open houses). They also make mention of ‘tool kits’ for both the wind companies and community members. I don’t know what more ‘tools’ the wind companies need. They write leases that give them absolute control of the land. From the unsigned residents they expropriate their amenity and devalue their properties. The local councils are powerless to regulate their activities. The appeal process is biased and corrupt. It’s pretty clear to people living in the townships that the system is insurmountably stacked against them.

It all comes down to this: if a landowner unwittingly signs a shitty contract, his neighbours lose too. Everyone loses.

THAT’S WHY THE LANDOWNERS NEED COMPETENT LEGAL ADVICE BEFORE THE LEASES ARE SIGNED.

Wynne & the Liberals, Determined to Destroy Ontario’s Future!

December 13, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Underfunded Pension Liabilities. More Wynne Incompetence.

[ 0 ] December 12, 2014 | Lydia

When the Huff Post takes swipes at Wynne and her Liberals, you know things are bad.

In a piece by the Huffington Post which is reporting on the Auditor General’s findings, it is clear that the Ontario Pension Liability coffers are insufficient by some 75 billion dollars. That means that you and I, Joe and Jane Nobody are on the hook for it. Why? Well because much of those plans are promised to contracted union employees of the Ontario government. So as long as there is one tax payer available from which to draw a “revenue stream”, it means that their pensions MUST be paid, even if the province doesn’t have a red penny left in the coffer pot to pay them.

Since the government doesn’t actually generate its own money, where do you suppose Wynne is looking to find that 75 Billion bucks? Might that 75 Billion get diverted from the cash that will be coming in from her new “Pension Plan”?

So keep in mind that public employees get free dental, eye glasses, eye laser surgery, chiropractor and physio services, added health care benefits for short and long term disability, gold plated pension benefits and even life insurance benefits, whereas – we the people who have to continue to pay for it all and are on the hook for it, more often than not, usually do without any and all of those same benefits. Not because we don’t think dental plans and life insurance plans for our loved ones aren’t important – on the contrary, they are. The fact is, that there just simply isn’t enough money left in our jeans to provide that for ourselves once the various levels of government extract their cut and we busy ourselves with simply trying to stay afloat on what’s left.

I’ll spare you the math, and instead I urge you to read the whole Huff article, which shows how this whole new boondoggle in waiting, – equates to essentially a $200,000 to $350,000 lifetime cash grab from each Ontario employee. Of course all benefitting the revenue starved Liberal Government. They are asking you to pay into a fund, where they hold the purse strings and they will keep ALL the money paid in, to spend as they see fit. As the Huff points out, if you put that money in your own savings plan, you’d be ahead of the game by some $350,000. You would be getting paid interest per month on your own money PLUS you would still own the 350K, not the government.

What many also still do not understand is that anyone who runs a small business, or is self employed, stands to get hit with not only the employee contribution, but you must pay your employer portion as well. For many, this cap of 1600 per year, will actually equate to DOUBLE the stated premium to a total maximum of 3400 bucks per year to Windmill Katie’s Government!

While it is still unclear how some of this Plan will be administered something about this whole idea simply stinks. The fine points are not forthcoming as of yet, as I suspect it is in part because there hasn’t been enough fiddling with needed loopholes in order to send endless streams of that newly incoming cash into general revenues, other barren budgetary areas and other Liberal pet projects.

Unless Wynne and her gang can figure out all the ways to get their hands on that new revenue stream, and spend it as they wish, (instead of locking it in legally to be maintained for its sole purpose which is: a FUND that could not be drawn against or pillaged for other government spending sprees.) – Unless Wynne and her gang can solidify their ability to divert that new cash to other areas whenever they please, HOWEVER they please, there really isn’t much of a reason to implement the plan at all.

In any case, the amount of times we hear about missing billions with this bunch is simply staggering. I do think there is a direct correlation between the fact that there is a 75 billion dollar Union Sector Pension liability short fall and this latest tactic to generate new money. They are going to have to find a way to drum up this 75 Billion bucks from somewhere, or more accurately, from someone. That someone is you and me.

This of course is where Liberals truly excel – they are pros at selling a shiny “Pension Fund” bait and switch shell game. Let’s face it, is far more palatable to sell something shiny and pretty to the unsuspecting Ontarian, than to simply tell them the truth – which is: Hey, our Pension funding is 75 Billion in the hole, with no way to make up that money and with no way to divert that money from other general coffers either…. and so we need gobs of money from each and every one of you so that we can make sure we have enough cash to pay our union employees their pensions.

I wouldn’t count on Joe Average ever seeing a red cent of this new pension money getting back into his jeans. I’m betting that Wynne and her Government will have long since spent it on other things.

Liberals Downplay the Auditor General’s Report…..As Usual.

December 12, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Auditor’s look at the Province’s books:

by lsarc

Another year, another Auditor, another Ontario Auditor General’s report – same findings of waste, mismanagement and incompetence.

Once again the Ontario Auditor General, a different one this time, in her 2013 Annual Report, looks at Ontario’s electricity sector and reveals the incompetence and lunacy of the Liberal government’s managing of the sector and the incoherence of their policies.

Unfortunately their mismanagement is not confined to the electricity sector. The Auditor found that the government has continued to spend public money on programs without setting in place any metrics to judge the effectiveness of those programs, nor at times even to ensure that the services we have paid for are even delivered. Cost/benefit analyses are still a foreign concept to this government and its bureaucrats.

This does not come as a surprise to those of us who have been pointing out (here, hereand here) that these policies are universally based on nothing more substantive than ideology, never on a cost/benefit analysis or factual data.

The costs to the Province’s ratepayers and taxpayers documented in the Auditor General’s Report 2013 are no surprise to those of us that have been decrying the lack of good government in Ontario.

According the the Ontario Auditor General, Infrastructure Ontario is an $8-billion mess and the electricity sector $50 billion dollar mess includes the $2 billion wasted on thosenot-so-smart “smart meters.”

“The total Global Adjustment charged to ratepayers has grown from $654 million in 2006 to $7.7 billion in 2013, as shown in Figure 10. With more new contracted generators, especially of renewable energy, expected to begin producing energy at higher contract prices, the total Global Adjustment is expected to grow further, to $8.5 billion in 2014 and $9.4 billion in 2015. From 2006 to 2015, the 10-year cumulative actual and projected Global Adjustment is about $50 billion—an extra charge to ratepayers over and above the market price of electricity.”

The Auditor General does not speculate on what this waste and the inflated costs means to Ontario’s economy, society and people.

As we have said in previous posts, the damage done to our economy and society is not only the needless additional cost for electricity, nor the wasted billions, which in many cases have bought us nothing more than additional liabilities.

Certainly these costs are important, but they pale in comparison with the opportunity costs incurred. What wealth and jobs for Ontario would $5 billion a year have created if invested by individuals in the economy? How many nurses and doctors, long term care facilities and other social benefits would $5 billion a year allow? How many billions in lost Gross Provincial Product from companies that leave the Province or go out of business?

Almost everyone blames Tim Hudak for losing the last election by telling people the truth. The Liberals lied and were rewarded with a majority. OPSEU’s Smokey Thomasbelieved Kathleen Wynne was lying and will cut at least 30,000 public sector jobs; he said at least Hudak is “honest and straightforward”.

The Mainstream Media helped by misrepresenting Hudak’s position and allowing the Liberals to misstate it.

The lesson our politicians learn has been re-enforced – never tell the electorate the truth. Next time we complain about politicians lying we have only ourselves to blame.

The unassailable fact remains, Ontario has an enormous debt and deficit, given the size of our population and shrinking economy. At some point in the very near future the Liberals will be forced to make much more drastic cuts and layoffs than Hudak would have because, beholden to the special interests that elected them, they will continue to ignore the problem and continue to increase spending and their trademark waste.

The longer they put the inevitable corrections off, the worse it will be for Ontario’s people. The smug belief that Ontario is too big and too important, and, being part of Canada, cannot meet the fate of Greece and Cyprus, is sadly misplaced.

The longer they wait, the greater the debt. Tax revenues will continue to decrease as the Ontario economy continues to contract, the result of uncompetitive energy prices and a corporate welfare strategy that discourages innovation and competitiveness. Inevitably they will have to increase taxes and further ‘monetize’ services to a tax base reduced by those who can moving to other Provinces for work, with more unemployed, and with a population struggling to pay ever higher electricity bills that has seen its disposable income reduced, the result of wages driven down by the competition for fewer jobs and from the cost of goods driven higher by unaffordable energy.

The problem with ideologues is that sooner or later they run out of other people’s money.

Looking at Ontario over the past 11 years of Liberal ‘government’ and being familiar with UN Agenda 21 one cannot help but think this has been a deliberate course of action chosen by ideologues believe that a socialist totalitarian state is in the best interests of Ontario’s citizens – or at least those that will rule them.

Maurice Strong, former Director of the UN Environment Program and the moving force behind the Rio Declaration and the UN’s Agenda 21 said:

“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class—involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing—are not sustainable. A shift is necessary towards lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”

“Isn’t the only hope for this planet the total collapse of industrial civilization? Is it not our responsibility to ensure that this collapse happens?”

Mr. Strong, a multi-millionaire who made his fortune from that same capitalist industrial civilization and took asylum in China as a result of his alleged links to the UN Oil-for-Food scandal, will not suffer from any collapse of industrial civilization given his wealth.

Most citizens of Ontario will though.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” – C. S. Lewis

Faux-Green EPA is Not a Friend of the People….

December 7, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

EPA CO2 rules will make make people poorer — and then kill them

Posted on December 6, 2014 by JunkScience.com

Statistician Stan Young shows how the real costs and imaginary benefits of the EPA CO2 rule are a deadly combination.

Are there mortality co-benefits to the Clean Power Plan? It depends.
S. Stanley Young, genetree@bellsouth.net

Some years ago, I listened to a series of lectures on finance. The professor would ask a rhetorical question, pause to give you some time to think, and then, moreoften than not, answer his question with, “It depends.” Are there mortality co-benefits to the Clean Power Plan? Is mercury coming from power plants leading to deaths? Well, it depends.

So, rhetorically, is an increase in CO2 a bad thing? There is good and bad in everything. Well, for plants an increase in CO2 is a good thing. They grow faster. They convert CO2 into more food and fiber. They give off more oxygen, which is good for humans. Plants appear to be CO2 starved.

It is argued that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and an increase in CO2 will raise temperatures, ice will melt, sea levels will rise, and coastal area will flood, etc. It depends. In theory yes, in reality, maybe. But a lot of other events must be orchestrated simultaneously. Obviously, that senerio depends on other things as, for the last 18 years, CO2 has continued to go up and temperatures have not. So it depends on other factors, solar radiance, water vapor, El Nino, sun spots, cosmic rays, earth presession, etc., just what the professor said.

So suppose ambient temperatures do go up a few degrees. On balance, is that bad for humans? The evidence is overwhelming that warmer is better for humans. One or two examples are instructive. First, Cox et al., (2013) with the title, “Warmer is healthier: Effects on mortality rates of changes in average fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations and temperatures in 100 U.S. cities.” To quote from the a Young1 Means CIs bstract of that paper, “Increases in average daily temperatures appear to signiﬁcantly reduce average daily mortality rates, as expected from previous research.” Here is their plot of daily mortality rate versus Max temperature. It is clear that as the maximum temperature in a city goes up, mortality goes down. So if the net effect of increasing CO2 is increasing temperature, there should be a reduction in deaths.

I have a very large California data set. The data covers eight air basins and the years 2000 to 2012. There are over 37,000 exposure days and over two million deaths. The data forLos Angeles for the year 2007 is typical.

The number of Heart or Lung deaths for people 65 and older are given on the left, y-axis. The moving 21-day median number of deaths are given with blue diamonds as time marches to the right. Deaths are high during the winter, when temperatures are lower; the number of deaths are lower during the summer, when the temperatures are higher. These plots are typical. It is known that higher temperatures are associated with lower deaths.

A purported co-benefit of lower CO2 is that there will be lower levels of PM2.5. (PM2.5 is not chemically defined, but is partially made up of combustion products.) It is widely believed that lower levels of PM2.5 will lead to fewer deaths. Here is what Cox et al. (2013) have to say, “Unexpectedly, reductions in PM2.5 do not appear to cause any reductions in mortality rates.” And here is their supporting figure below.

Chay et al. (2003) looked at a reduction in air pollution due to the Clean Air Act. Counties out of compliance were given stricter air pollution reduction goals. This action by the EPA created a so called natural experiment, Craig et al. (2012). The EPA selected counties did reduce air pollution levels, but there was no reduction in deaths after adjustments for covariates. Chay et al. (2003) say, “We ﬁnd that regulatory status is associated with large reductions in TSPs pollution but has little association with reductions in either adult or elderly mortality.” So Cox et al. (2013) confirm the finding of Chay et al. (2003) that a reduction in PM2.5 does not lead to a reduction in deaths. Young and Xia (2013) found no assocation of PM2.5 with longevity in western US. Enstrom (2005) and many others have found no association of chronic deaths with PM2.5 in California.

Many claim an assocation of air pollution with deaths, acute and chronic. How can the two sets of claims be understood? Well, it depends. Greven et al. (2011) say in their abstract, “… we derive a Poisson regression model and estimate two regression coefﬁcients: the “global” coefﬁcient that measures the association between national trends in pollution and mortality; and the “local” coefﬁcient, derived from space by time variation, that measures the association between location-speciﬁc trends in pollution and mortality adjusted by the national trends. …Results based on the global coefﬁcient indicate a large increase in the national life expectancy for reductions in the yearly national average of PM2.5. However, this coefﬁcient based on national trends in PM2.5 and mortality is likely to be confounded by other variables trending on the national level. Confounding of the local coefﬁcient by unmeasured factors is less likely, although it cannot be ruled out. Based on the local coefﬁcient alone, we are not able to demonstrate any change in life expectancy for a reduction in PM2.5.” (Italics mine) In plain words, associations measured from location to location, which are likely to be affected by differences in covariates, show an association. Examination of trends within locations, which are less likely to be affected by covariates, show no association. In short, the claims made depend on how well covariates are taken into account. When they are taken into account, Chay et al. (2003), Greven et al. (2011), Cox et al. (2013), Young (2014), there is no association of air pollution with deaths. Chay controls for multiple economic factors. Greven controls for location. Cox controls for temperature. Young controls for time and geography.

Note well: The analysis of Young (2014) uses a moving median within a location (air basin). This analysis is much less likely to be affected by covariates. This analysis finds no assocation of air pollution (PM2.5 or ozone) with deaths. Several figures are instructive. The figures are for LA, but are typical for the other California air basins. First ozone:

The figures were constructed as follows. From the daily death total was subtracted a 21-day moving median. This calculation corrects for the time trend in the data. From the daily air pollution level the 21-day moving median for the air pollution was subtracted. The daily death “deviation” was plotted against the pollution “deviation”. If air pollution was causing deaths, then the density in these three figures should go from lower left to upper right. To examine if previous air pollution, e.g. yesterday or the day before, was associated with current deaths, lags of 0, 1, and 2 days were used, hence the three figures. Plots like these were computed for all eight air basins; the figures for LA are typical. Next we give the same sort of figures, but for PM2.5. Again, LA.

Again, the density is concentrated at zero PM2.5 and zero deaths, and, the important point, there is no tilt of the density from lower left to upper right. And again the plots for LA are typical of the other seven air basins.

Can we say more? Many authors have noted “geographic heterogeneity”, the measured effect of air pollution is not the same in different locations. There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of geographic heterogeneity. See for example, Krewski et al. (2000), Smith et al. (2009), Greven et al. (2011) and Young and Xia (2013). Multiple authors have not found any association of air pollution with acute deaths in California, Krewski et al. (2000), Smith et al. (2009), Young and Xia (2013) and Jarrett et al. (2013). Enstrom (2005) found no association with chronic deaths in California. A careful consideration of of this “geographic heterogeneity” is a key to understanding why it is unlikely that air pollution is causing deaths. Given that geographic heterogeneity exists, how should it be interpreted? First, statistical practice says that if interaction exists, then average effects often are misleading. Any recommendations should be for specific situations. In the words of the finance professor, it depends. In this case it makes no sense to regulate air pollution in California more severely than current regulations.

We can consider the question of interactions of air pollution with geography more deeply. Greven et al. (2011) state in their abstract, “Based on the local coefficient alone, we are not able to demonstrate any change in life expectancy for a reduction in PM2.5.” and they go on to say differences in locations (geographic heterogeneity) is most likely due to differences in covariates, e.g. age distributions, income, smoking. Indeed when Chay et al. (2003) corrected their analysis for an extensive list of covariates, they found no effect of the EPA intervention to reduce air pollution.

There is empirical evidence and a logical case that air pollution is (most likely) not causally related to acute deaths. Heart attacks and stroke were recently removed as a possible etiology, Milojevic et al. (2014).

Economics on the back of an envelope

The EPA claims saving 6,600 deaths per year due to CPP. They value each death at nine million dollars giving a co-benefit of $59.4B. But analysis that takes covariates into consideration finds no excess deaths due to ozone or PM2.5. The $59.4B co-benefit is the result of flawed analysis. And what is the cost of the regulation? The EPA says CPP is the most costly regulation it has considered and puts the cost at up to $90B/yr. The National Manufacturers Association puts the cost at $270B/yr, $900/person/year in 2020.

Consider Figure 4b of Young and Xia (2013). The data used in this figure is that used in Pope, Ezzati, and Dockery (2009) and was kindly provided by Arden Pope III. Change in income and air pollution from ~1980 to ~2000 wasused. Income in thousands of dollars increase over that time period, but differed in magnitude from city to city, the x-axis. Life expectancy increased as well, y-axis. The general trend is very clear, increased income is associated with increased life expectancy. The income-life expectancy relationship is well-known. See the dramatic video by Hans Rosling (2010). To the extent that regulations are expensive, they should move people down and left in this figure with life expectancy less than it would have been. For example, $900 less income is expected to reduce life expectancy by two months.

So, do you want the EPA CPP regulations to extend your life not at all, costing you $900/yr or do you want to have use of your own money and save two months of your life? It depends. EPA decides or you decide.

Summary

Increased CO2 is good for plants as plants grow better with increased CO2.
Increases in temperature, however caused, are good for humans as they are less likely to die.
The science literature, when covariates are controlled, is on the side that increased ozone and PM2.5 are not associated with increased deaths.
On balance, the costs of reducing CO2, PM2.5 and ozone are expected to lead to reduced life expectancy.

There is No Reason for Them To Lie! Google Engineers Expose the Renewables Scam!

December 1, 2014 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Google’s Top Engineers say: “Renewable Energy Simply Won’t Work”

December 1, 2014 by stopthesethings

Renewable energy ‘simply WON’T WORK’: Top Google engineers
The Register
Lewis Page
21 November 2014

Windmills, solar, tidal – all a ‘false hope’, say Stanford PhDs

Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO₂emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.

Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren’t guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or “technology” of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company. The duo were employed at Google on the RE<C project, which sought to enhance renewable technology to the point where it could produce energy more cheaply than coal.

RE<C was a failure, and Google closed it down after four years. Now, Koningstein and Fork have explained the conclusions they came to after a lengthy period of applying their considerable technological expertise to renewables, in an article posted at IEEE Spectrum.

The two men write:

At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …

Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

One should note that RE<C didn’t restrict itself to conventional renewable ideas like solar PV, windfarms, tidal, hydro etc. It also looked extensively into more radical notions such as solar-thermal, geothermal, “self-assembling” wind towers and so on and so forth. There’s no get-out clause for renewables believers here.

Koningstein and Fork aren’t alone. Whenever somebody with a decent grasp of maths and physics looks into the idea of a fully renewables-powered civilised future for the human race with a reasonably open mind, they normally come to the conclusion that it simply isn’t feasible. Merely generating the relatively small proportion of our energy that we consume today in the form of electricity is already an insuperably difficult task for renewables: generating huge amounts more on top to carry out the tasks we do today using fossil-fuelled heat isn’t even vaguely plausible.

Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.

In reality, well before any such stage was reached, energy would become horrifyingly expensive – which means that everything would become horrifyingly expensive (even the present well-under-one-per-cent renewables level in the UK has pushed up utility bills very considerably). This in turn means that everyone would become miserably poor and economic growth would cease (the more honest hardline greens admit this openly). That, however, means that such expensive luxuries as welfare states and pensioners, proper healthcare (watch out for that pandemic), reasonable public services, affordable manufactured goods and transport, decent personal hygiene, space programmes (watch out for the meteor!) etc etc would all have to go – none of those things are sustainable without economic growth.

So nobody’s up for that. And yet, stalwart environmentalists like Koningstein and Fork – and many others – remain convinced that the dangers of carbon-driven warming are real and massive. Indeed the pair reference the famous NASA boffin Dr James Hansen, who is more or less the daddy of modern global warming fears, and say like him that we must move rapidly not just to lessened but to zero carbon emissions (and on top of that, suck a whole lot of CO₂ out of the air by such means as planting forests).

So, how is this to be done?

Koningstein and Fork say that humanity’s only hope is a new method of energy generation which can provide power – ideally “dispatchable” (can be turned on and off) and/or “distributed” (produced near where it’s wanted) – at costs well below those of coal or gas. They write:

What’s needed are zero-carbon energy sources so cheap that the operators of power plants and industrial facilities alike have an economic rationale for switching over within the next 40 years …

Incremental improvements to existing technologies aren’t enough; we need something truly disruptive.

Unfortunately the two men don’t know what that is, or if they do they aren’t saying. James Hansen does, though: it’s nuclear power.

As applied at the moment, of course, nuclear power isn’t cheap enough to provide a strong economic rationale. That’s because its costs have been forced enormously higher than they would otherwise be by the imposition of cripplingly high health and safety standards (in its three “disasters” so far – Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima – the scientifically verified death tolls from all causes have been and will be zero, 56 and zero: a record which other power industries including renewables can only envy*).

Nuclear costs have also been artificially driven up by the non-issue of “waste”. In the UK for instance, all “higher activity nuclear waste” must be kept expensively stored in a secure specialist facility and can only ever – perhaps – be finally disposed of in a wildly expensive geological vault. No less than 99.7 per cent of this “waste” is actually intermediate-level, meaning that it basically isn’t radioactive at all: you could theoretically make half a tonne of ordinary dirt into such “intermediate level nuclear waste” by burying a completely legal luminous wristwatch in it. (If you did that inside the boundaries of a licensed nuclear facility, the dirt really would then become ridiculously costly “waste”.)

The remaining 0.003 of “nuclear waste” actually is dangerous, but it can almost all be reprocessed into fuel and used again. So waste really doesn’t need to be an issue at all.

There can’t be any doubt that if nuclear power had been allowed to be as dangerous per unit of energy generated as, say, the gas industry* – let alone the terribly dangerous coal business – it truly would be too cheap to meter and Messrs Koningstein and Fork’s problem would have been solved for them decades ago: by now, nobody with access to uranium would be bothering with fossil fuels except for specialist purposes – and there’s no reason why nations “of concern” couldn’t be kept safely supplied. Would we run out of uranium? Not until the year 5000AD.

Cheap power solves a lot more problems than just carbon emissions, too. If power is cheap, so is fresh water (the fact is we’re really at that point already, though a lot of people refuse to admit it and prefer to treat fresh water as some sort of scarce and finite resource). If fresh water is cheap, an awful lot more of the planet is habitable and/or arable than is the case if it’s expensive: and that is truly game-changing stuff for the human race.

And as a side benefit we’d by now have actual useful spacecraft which could actually go to places in reasonable amounts of time carrying reasonable amounts of stuff at reasonable costs. We’d be able to establish viable bases on other planets – for instance to mine uranium there, should we ever find ourselves running low.

Even if you aren’t terribly convinced about the looming menace of carbon-driven warming, the fact that we have decided of our own free will not to have cheap, abundant energy and all the miracles it would bring with it … that’s a terrible human tragedy. Nobody knows how much misery might result from climate change in the future, but one can say with certainty that a lot of misery has been caused by the absence of cheap energy, water, food and decent places to live over the last sixty-plus years.

Anyway the truth is that the disruptive new technology which Koningstein and Fork are dreaming of already exists: but it’s been stolen from us by our foolish fears, inflated in many cases by dishonest activists. Even if someone could come up with some other way of making terrifically cheap energy, there’s no guarantee that the ignorant fearmongers of the world wouldn’t manage to suppress that too. There would almost certainly be a powerful application in weapons, just as there is in nuclear; this is, after all, energy we’re talking about.

Koningstein and Fork believe that the answer to the carbon menace is a reallocation of R&D spending, to seek out high-risk disruptive technologies. But the fact is it would probably make more sense to spend money on making sure that people don’t reach voting age without understanding basic mathematics and facts about risk and energy.

You wouldn’t need to take that money from R&D. You could instead repurpose some of the huge and growing amounts of money that are currently being diverted into the purchase of tiny amounts of ridiculously expensive renewable energy.

After all, no matter the wider issues, we now have it on the best and unimpeachably environmentalist of authorities that renewable energy can’t achieve its stated purpose. So – no matter what – there can’t be any point in continuing with it.

None of this is new, of course. These realities have been wilfully ignored by the British governing class and others for many years. But the British/American governing classes, so fatally committed to renewables, often seem willing to listen to Google even if they won’t listen to anyone else.

So, just maybe, this time the message will have some impact.

Bootnote

*The Piper Alpha gas rig explosion of 1988 on its own caused three times as many deaths as the nuclear power industry has in its entire history. Bizarrely though, no nations ceased using gas.
The Register

James Delingpole followed up on The Register’s brilliant piece of analysis with his usual dash and flair.

Renewable Energy: So Useless That Even Greenie Google Gave up on it
Breitbart.com
James Delingpole
22 November 2014

Some people call it “renewable energy” but I prefer to call it “alternative energy” because that’s what it really is: an alternative to energy that actually works (eg nuclear and anything made from wonderful, energy-rich fossil fuel.)

Now a pair of top boffins from uber-green Google’s research department have reached the same conclusion.

Ross Konigstein and David Fork, both Stanford PhDs (aerospace engineering; applied physics) were employed on a Google research project which sought to enhance renewable technology to the point where it could produce energy more cheaply than coal. But after four years, the project was closed down. In this post at IEEE Spectrum they tell us why.

We came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

Why is renewable energy such a total fail? Because, as Lewis Page explains here, it’s so ludicrously inefficient and impossibly expensive that if ever we were so foolish as to try rolling it out on a scale beyond its current boutique levels, it would necessitate bankrupting the global economy.

In a nutshell, renewable energy is rubbish because so much equipment is needed to make it work – steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage – that it very likely uses up more energy than it actually produces.

Yet our political class remains committed to the fantasy that the emperor’s green clothes are perfectly magnificent. Earlier this week, for example, the British government chucked £720 million of taxpayers’ money into a cesspit labelled the Green Climate Fund.

In theory this UN-driven initiative is supposed to help Third World countries cope with the effects of climate change. In reality, all it will do is force on their struggling economies more of the costly, intermittent renewable technologies (wind turbines; solar; etc) which have proved such a disaster for the advanced Western economies.

If we really want to throw money at the developing world so it can combat climate change, then what we should really be doing is insist that it is spent on adaptation projects – not, heaven forfend, ones to do with “decarbonisation.”

As Benny Peiser and Daniel Mahoney write here, adaptation projects make a real difference and save lives.

Bangladesh’s investment in cyclone shelters, better weather forecasts, and smarter construction practices is a prime example of how effective adaptation can be. The country has learnt how to prepare for the threat of cyclones, succeeding in significantly reducing related deaths. The two deadliest cyclones in Bangladesh’s history occurred in 1970 and 1991, killing up to 500,000 and almost 140,000 respectively. Through adaptation investment, in the last two decades the country has been able to reduce deaths and injuries from such disasters 100-fold.

Instead, though, our leaders are still ideologically committed to wasting much of our foreign aid on renewables.

Take the UK’s recent contributions. Just over a quarter of UK climate aid from 2011 to the beginning of 2014 went to adaptation measures, whereas well over 50 per cent was allocated to renewables, according to the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. The World Resources Institute estimates that, between 2010 and 2012, of a total of $35bn in global climate aid, a mere $5bn was allocated to adaptation.

You know that scene right at the end of Spartacus? Well I think I’d like to recreate it, using wind turbines instead of crucifixes, and, instead of rebellious gladiators, all those lovely people – green activists, wind and solar industry parasites, idiot politicians – who’ve been telling us that renewable energy is the way forward.
Breitbart.com

Ontario’s Liberal Government Ignores, and Denies, Health Effects of Wind Turbines…

November 30, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Ontario’s Wind Powered Health Calamity

November 30, 2014 by stopthesethings

Ontario is the scene of a perfectly avoidable and entirely unnecessarypublic health disaster.

The rights of people to live peaceful, healthy lives in rural Ontario have been trampled under the jackboots of Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals – a solid team of hard-‘green’-left eco-fascist nutjobs, responsible for the most bizarre, pointless and costly energy policy on Earth (see our posts hereand here and here)

The scale and scope of the disaster was laid bare in the brilliant documentary, Down Wind (see our post here) and has been pursued with proper journalistic zeal by Sun News’ investigative reporter, Rebecca Thompson (see our posts here and here).

A couple of weeks back, Wynne’s puppets at her Health Department (laughably called “Health Canada”) threw together yet another half-baked, wind industry approved pile of tosh parading as “research” on the known and obvious impacts of turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound.

Ever since, properly qualified people have been slamming it for the sloppiness of the work and the wild assumptions upon which its undercooked “conclusions” rest.

Two of them – Carmen Krogh and Bob McMurtry penned the piece below.

Carmen Krogh, BScPharm (retired), is a peer reviewed IWT health researcher and former Director of Publications and Editor-in-Chief of the CPS.

RY “Bob” McMurtry is Professor Emeritus (Surgery) of Western University (formerly University of Western Ontario). Dr. McMurtry was also an ADM at Health Canada 2000-02.

Health Canada and Wind Turbines: Too little too late?
CMAJ
28 November 2014

Industrial wind turbines (IWTs) are being erected at rapid pace around the world. Coinciding with the introduction of IWTs, some individuals living in proximity to IWTs report adverse health effects including annoyance, sleep disturbance, stress-related health impacts and reduced quality of life. [i],[ii],[iii],[iv],[v],[vi],[vii],[viii],[ix],[x],[xi],[xii] In some cases Canadian families reporting adverse health effects have abandoned their homes, been billeted away from their homes or hired legal counsel to successfully reach a financial agreement with the wind energy developer.[xiii]

To help address public concern over these health effects Health Canada (HC) announced the Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study(HC Study) 2 years ago and brought forth preliminary results November 6, 2014.

Here we briefly comment on the HC Study results and provide some historical context.

Acknowledgement of IWT adverse health effects is not new. The term “annoyance” frequently appears when discussing IWT health effects.

In a 2009 letter the Honourable Rona Ambrose, disclosed:

“Health Canada provides advice on the health effect of noise and low-frequency electric and magnetic fields from proposed wind turbine projects…To date, their examination of the scientific literature on wind turbine noise is that the only health effect conclusively demonstrated from exposure to wind turbine noise is an increase of self-reported general annoyance and complaints (i.e., headaches, nausea, tinnitus, vertigo).” [xiv]

In 2009, the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) sponsored a literature review which acknowledges the reported symptoms such as headaches, nausea, tinnitus, vertigo and state they “… are not new and have been published previously in the context of “annoyance”…” and are the “… well-known stress effects of exposure to noise …”[xv]

In 2011, a health survey of people exposed to IWTs in Ontario reported altered quality of life, sleep disturbance, excessive tiredness, headaches, stress and distress. [xvi]

In the same year, CanWEA posted a media release which advised those impacted by wind turbine annoyance stating “The association has always acknowledged that a small percentage of people can be annoyed by wind turbines in their vicinity. … When annoyance has a significant impact on an individual’s quality of life, it is important that they consult their doctor.”[xvii]

It turns out it’s not a small percentage of people annoyed by wind turbines. An Ontario Government report concluded a non-trivial percentage of persons are expected to be highly annoyed.

The December 2011 report prepared by a member of CanWEA for the Ontario Ministry of Environment states in the conclusions:

“The audible sound from wind turbines, at the levels experienced at typical receptor distances in Ontario, is nonetheless expected to result in a non-trivial percentage of persons being highly annoyed. As with sounds from many sources, research has shown that annoyance associated with sound from wind turbines can be expected to contribute to stress related health impacts in some persons.”[xviii]

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledges noise induced annoyance to be a health effect [xix] and the results of WHO research “…confirmed, on an epidemiological level, an increased health risk from chronic noise annoyance…”[xx]

HC also acknowledges noise induced annoyance to be an adverse health effect. [xxi],[xxii] The Principal Investigator of the recent HC Study also states “noise-induced annoyance is an adverse health effect”. [xxiii]

Canadian Government sponsored research has found statistically significant relationships from IWT noise exposure.

A 2014 review article in the Canadian Journal of Rural Medicine reports:

“In 2013, research funded by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment indicated a statistically significant relation between residents’ distance from the turbine and the symptoms of disturbed sleep, vertigo and tinnitus, and recommended that future research focus on the effects of wind turbine noise on sleep disturbance and symptoms of inner ear problems.” [xxiv]

Recently on November 6, 2014, HC posted on its website preliminary results of its HC Study[xxv]. Wind turbine noise “…. annoyance was found to be statistically related to several self-reporting health effects including, but not limited to, blood pressure, migraines, tinnitus, dizziness, scores on the PSQI, and perceived stress” as well as related to “measured hair cortisol, systolic and diastolic blood pressure.”

These troubling results come as no surprise. Since at least 2007 HC employees including the Principal Investigator of the HC Study recommended wind turbine noise criteria which they predict will result in adverse health effects. (i.e. result in an increase percentage highly annoyed).[xxvi],[xxvii],[xxviii]

Then turbines were built and HC spent 2.1 million dollars to find out it appears to have under predicted the impact of IWT noise. HC’s IWT noise criteria does not use a dose response based on IWT noise but rather road noise. But of course IWTs are not cars and peer-reviewed studies consistently document that IWTs produce sound that is perceived to be more annoying than transportation or industrial noise at comparable sound pressure levels. [xxix],[xxx]

IWT noise annoyance starts at dBA sound pressure levels in the low 30s and rises sharply at 35 dBA as compared to road noise which starts at 55 dBA. These findings are further supported by the HC Study’s preliminary results. [xxxi]

IWT noise characteristics that are identified as plausible causes for reported health effects include amplitude modulation, audible low- frequency noise (LFN), infrasound, tonal noise, impulse noise and night-time noise. [xxxii]

The logical solution would be to develop IWT noise criteria which will protect human health but that would present a barrier to wind energy development. Noise limits impacts IWT siting, cost of energy produced[xxxiii] and by extension corporate profits. The wind energy industry has actively lobbied governments to be granted IWT noise exposure limits which benefit their industry.

Canadians trying to understand this should be mindful the Government of Canada has invested and distributed significant amounts of public money to attract and support the wind energy industry. [xxxiv],[xxxv],[xxxvi],[xxxvii],[xxxviii],[xxxix],[xl],[xli] In addition to providing funding, the Government of Canada in collaboration with wind industry stakeholders has developed the Wind Technology Road Map (Wind TRM) [xlii] which Natural Resources Canada defined to be an “…industry-led, government supported initiative that has developed a long-term vision for the Canadian wind energy industry …”.[xliii]

Canada’s Wind TRM states “Members of the Steering Committee, government and our industry will be using this roadmap to direct the actions that are necessary for Canada to develop its vast wind resources.”[xliv] HC is a member of the Interdepartmental Wind Technology Road Map Committee [xlv] which was created to assist in the implementation of Canada’s Wind TRM. [xlvi] One of the “key action items” detailed in the Wind TRM calls for Government and Industry collaboration to develop and maintain government documents that address concerns raised about wind energy projects including that of noise, infrasound and other. [xlvii]

Some jurisdictions are trying to take action to protect their residents. For example, several municipalities in Ontario are trying to establish bylaws that protect from IWT noise. In Wisconsin, on October 14, 2014 the Brown County Board of Health unanimously approved a motion to declare the IWTs at a local project a Human Health Hazard. [xlviii]

It would appear HC’s research effort is too little too late. A non-trivial percentage of Canadians continue to experience adverse health effects. HC now has additional scientific evidence of the “conclusively demonstrated” effects from exposure to IWT noise. It is time for HC to take action to help Canadians maintain and improve their health. (for the references, see below)
CMAJ

Bob and Carmen aren’t the only qualified experts dumping on the woeful “methods” and flawed assumptions of the Health Canada “research”.

John Harrison, a Queen’s University professor emeritus in physics, slammed the “research”, saying that: “the Health Canada study is more politics than science“.

John Harrison is joined by Denise Wolfe – a highly experienced clinical trial research auditor – who has taken a well-honed axe to the “study” – hammering it for:

hiding and fudging the raw data;
failing to meet the study design’s own sample size criteria;
only taking its noise samples during summer, when there is little or no wind;
inherent inconsistencies between the data relied on and the arguments presented in the report;
incomplete and inconsistent noise modelling;
excluding children – the most vulnerable group – from the study altogether;
failing to point out that annoyance of the kind identified by the study (which includes sleep deprivation) is defined by the WHO as an adverse health effect (refer to its Night-time Noise Guidelines for Europe – the Executive Summary at XI to XII covers the point);
failing to even bother analysing the infrasound data gathered;
and, having failed to even analyse the infrasound data, making wholly unsupported conclusions about its impact on sleep and health;
in relation to its flawed noise data modelling, relying on wind speed data up to 50km away from the residences involved;
making the bogus claim that the study has been published in a peer-reviewed journal (it hasn’t);
misleading verbiage (ie waffle and gobbledygook);
prematurely publishing what is a piece of political propaganda, based on incomplete and deliberately misleading and inconsistent information; and
failing to disclose links between those that worked on the study and their wind industry backers.

References (to the CMAJ article)

[i] Pedersen E, Persson KW. Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise–a dose response relationship. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2004; 116: 3460-70.

[ii] Harry A. Wind turbines, noise and health. 2007, February. Availablehere

[iii] Pedersen E, Persson Waye K. Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and well being in different living environments. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2007;64:480-86.

[iv] Phipps R, Amati M, McCoard S, Fisher R. Visual and noise effects reported by residents living close to Manawatu wind farms: Preliminary survey results. 2007. Available here

[v] Pedersen E, Bakker R, Bouma J, van den Berg F. Response to noise from modern wind farms in the Netherlands. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2009; 126: 634-43.

[vi] Pierpont N. Wind turbine syndrome: A report on a natural experiment. Santa Fe, NM: K-Selected Books. 2009. Available here

[vii] Krogh C, Gillis L, Kouwen N, Aramini J. WindVOiCe, a self-reporting survey: Adverse health effects, industrial wind turbines, and the need for vigilance monitoring. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society. 2011; 31: 334-45.

[viii] Shepherd D, McBride D, Welch D, Dirks KN, Hill EM. Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health-related quality of life. Noise Health. 2011;13:333-9.

[ix] Thorne B. The problems with noise numbers for wind farm noise assessment. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 2011;31:262-90.

[x] Rand R., Ambrose S, Krogh C. Wind turbine acoustic investigation: infrasound and low-frequency noise–a case study, Bulletin of Science Technology & Society. 2012;32:128–41

[xi] Falmouth Health Department. Letter to Massachusetts Department of Public Health. June 11, 2012. Available on request.

[xii] Nissenbaum M, Aramini J, Hanning C. Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health. Noise Health. 2012;14:60:237-43.

[xiii] Roy D. Jeffery, Carmen Krogh, and Brett Horner Industrial wind turbines and adverse health effects

[xiv] Can J Rural Med 2014;19(1):21-26

[xiv] Krogh – Correspondence from the Honourable Rona Ambrose, June 30, 2009. Available on request.

[xv] Colby, W. D., Dobie, R., Leventhall, G., Lipscomb, D. M., McCunney, R. J., Seilo, M. T., & Søndergaard, B., Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Panel Review, Washington, DC: American Wind Energy Association and Canadian Wind Energy Association. (2009). Available here

[xvi] Krogh C, Gillis L, Kouwen N, Aramini J. WindVOiCe, a self-reporting survey: Adverse health effects, industrial wind turbines, and the need for vigilance monitoring. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society. 2011; 31: 334-45.

[xvii] The Canadian Wind Energy Association, The Canadian Wind Energy Association Responds To October 14, 2011 Statement By Wind Concerns Ontario, Media Release (2011, October 14) PDF Available on request.

[xviii] Howe Gastmeier Chapnik Limited. (2010, December 10). Low frequency noise and infrasound associated with wind turbine generator systems: A literature review (Rfp No. Oss-078696). Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: Ministry of the Environment.

[xix] World Health Organization, Guidelines for Community Noise,1999 Available here

[xx] Niemann H, Bonnefoy X, Braubach M, Hecht K, Maschke C, Rodrigues C, Robbel N. Noise-induced annoyance and morbidity results from the pan-European LARES study. Noise Health 2006;8:63-79

[xxi] Health Canada, Community Noise Annoyance, It’s Your Health, (2005, September). [cited 2014 Nov 25]. Available here

[xxii] Health Canada, Useful Information for Environmental Assessments, (2010), Published by authority of the Minister of Health. [cited 2014 Nov 25]]. Available here

[xxiii] Michaud, D. S., Keith, S. E., & McMurchy, D., “Noise Annoyance in Canada”, Noise Health, 7, 39-47, (2005)

[xxiv] Roy D. Jeffery, Carmen Krogh, and Brett Horner Industrial wind turbines and adverse health effects

[xiv] Can J Rural Med 2014;19(1) Available here

[xxv] Health Canada, Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study: Summary of Results, November 6 2014. Available here

[xxvi] Keith SE, Michaud DS, Bly SHP. A justification for using a 45 dBA sound level criterion for wind turbine projects. N.D.

[xxvii] Keith SE, Michaud DS, Bly SHP. A proposal for evaluating the potential health effects of wind turbine noise for projects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Lyon France September 20 -21 2007

[xxviii] Keith SE, Michaud DS, Bly SHP. A proposal for evaluating the potential health effects of wind turbine noise for projects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. J Low Freq Noise. 2008:27:253-65.

[xxix] Pedersen E, Persson KW. Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise–a dose response relationship. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2004; 116: 3460-70.

[xxx] Pedersen E, Bakker R, Bouma J, van den Berg F. Response to noise from modern wind farms in the Netherlands. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2009; 126: 634-43.

[xxxi] Health Canada, Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study: Summary of Results, November 6 2014. Available here

[xxxii] Jeffery RD, Krogh CME, and Horner B, [Review] Industrial wind turbines and adverse health effects Can J Rural Med 2014;19(1), 21-26. Available here

[xxxiii] Canadian Wind Energy Association [website]. Letter to Neil Parish re: sound level limits for wind farms. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Wind Energy Association; 2004. Available on request.

[xxxiv] Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, EcoEnergy for Renewable Power, web update June 1 2009 Improving Energy Performance in Canada an ecoACTION initiative. Available here

[xxxv] Government of Canada Natural Resources Canada: Government of Canada Announces $9.2 Million for Alberta Wind Energy Project. July 07, Available here

[xxxvi] Minister of Natural Resources Lisa Raitt (Thursday, 10 Sept 2009) MEDIA RELEASE -Renewable Energy Expands in Ontario. Available here

[xxxvii] Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada. ecoENERGY for Renewable Power Program Power Program Date Modified: 2011-02-25 Available here

[xxxviii] Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada. About Renewable Energy

[xxxix] Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada. ecoENERGY for Renewable Power Program, Available here

[xl] Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada. ecoENERGY for Renewable Power Program Power Program. Available here

[xli] The Honourable Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources Canada, Letter of correspondence August 10, 2012. Available on request.

[xlii] Access to Information and Privacy Request (ATIP) Briefing Note to the Ministers Office, Update on the Development of Federal-Provincial-Territorial Guidelines on Wind Turbine Noise

[xliii] Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN) Wind Energy | Canada’s Wind TRM (Technology Road Map). Available here

[xliv] Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN) Wind Energy | Canada’s Wind TRM (Technology Road Map). Available here

[xlv] Health Canada, (2012) Health Canada Policy and Research Approach for Wind Turbine Noise – A presentation to the Science Advisory Board, February 2, 2012 Available here

[xlvi] Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada. Wind Technology Road Map. Next Steps. Available here

[xlvii] Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN) Wind Energy | Canada’s Wind TRM (Technology Road Map). Available here

[xlviii] Proceedings of the Brown County Board of Health, Meeting, Tuesday, October 14, 2014 Available here (see page 13)
CMAJ

The Wind Industry Denies, What Wind Turbine Victims Experience is Their Fault….They’re Wrong!

November 26, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Lawrence Solomon: Ill winds blow from wind turbines

Lawrence Solomon | November 25, 2014
More from Lawrence Solomon | @LSolomonTweets

Wind turbines produce audible sound waves known to cause what medical science calls “annoyance,” a state of health that can lead to a constellation of illnesses called wind turbine syndrome (WTS).

THE CANADIAN PRESS / Colin Perkel Wind turbines produce audible sound waves known to cause what medical science calls “annoyance,” a state of health that can lead to a constellation of illnesses called wind turbine syndrome (WTS)

The wind industry is dangerous to human health, posing risks to everything from dizziness and nausea to chronic stress and heart conditions

A Canadian court will soon decide if wind turbines violate Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms by posing a risk to human health. Charter case decisions can be convoluted but the fundamental question of health at issue here is straightforward. Wind turbines, from all that is today known and by any rational measure, represent a risk to those living in their vicinity.

Although the wind industry and its government backers tend to dismiss concerns, the evidence of harm in communities that host wind turbines is overwhelming. Literally thousands of people around the world report similar adverse health effects, some so serious that owners abandon their homes. Studies of noise from turbines — though few in number, short in duration, tentative in their findings and conducted by interested parties — point to dangers. As if that wasn’t enough, basic science sounds the alarm on wind turbines.

Wind turbines produce audible sound waves known to cause what medical science calls “annoyance,” a state of health that can lead to a constellation of illnesses called wind turbine syndrome (WTS). As Health Canada reported earlier this month, following a Statistics Canada survey it commissioned of people living in the vicinity of wind turbines, “[wind turbine noise] annoyance was found to be statistically related to several self-reported health effects including, but not limited to, blood pressure, migraines, tinnitus [ringing in the ears], dizziness” and sleep disorders. The annoyance was also found to be statistically associated with objective measurements of chronic stress and blood pressure. Health Canada’s bottom line: “the findings support a potential link between long-term high annoyance and health.”

The audible sound waves — these have a frequency above 20 Hz — may be the least of the worries faced by those living near wind turbines. The turbines also produce copious amounts of sound waves below 20 Hz, making them inaudible to the human ear and thus, say wind proponents, harmless. Yet sound at this low frequency, known as infrasound, should not be thought of as faint or weak. The U.S. military has studied the use of infrasound in non-lethal weapons. Many mammals — giraffes, elephants, whales — communicate with each other at infrasound frequencies, even when many kilometres apart. Powerful infrasound waves, in fact, explain how animals sense the coming of earthquakes well before humans do — and why animals fled to safety during the calamitous Sumatran and Japanese tsunamis of recent years.

Like other mammals, humans are sensitive to infrasound, even though the human ear doesn’t “hear” it. Our inner ear has four rows of hair cells, only one of which — the fourth row — “hears.” It does this by converting sound-wave energy above 20 Hz to electricity that then travels to the brain, which makes the sounds intelligible to us. The first three rows of hair cells also convert sound, this time for sound-wave energy below 20 Hz. The electric signals from this infrasound also enter the brain but the current state of science doesn’t know much of what happens next. It especially doesn’t know what happens when the brain receives infrasound stimulation for prolonged periods, let alone 24/7 as happens with people living near wind turbines, because no long-term study has ever been conducted to find out, either on animals or on humans.

Numerous short-term studies in both animals and humans do exist — a 2001 review by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Infrasound Toxicological Summary, located more than 100 infrasound studies around the world, many of the subjects in the human studies reporting the same adverse health effects — fatigue, sleeplessness, nausea, heart disorders — that afflict those living near wind turbines. In an unusual 2003 U.K. experiment involving the National Physical Laboratory, the country’s largest applied physics organization, back-to-back music concerts were staged in London’s Purcell Hall, similar in all respects except that two different musical pieces in each concert were laced with infrasound. The result: while hearing the infrasound-laced pieces, audience members reported significantly elevated sensations of nausea, dizziness, increased heart rates, and tingling in the neck and shoulders, among other sensations.

It’s clear from the documents that come out of the wind industry that they’re trying very hard to suppress the notion of wind turbine syndrome.

Despite the well-document effects of infrasound on animals and humans, the vast majority of studies of sound from wind turbines ignore the effects of infrasound; they instead compare wind turbine sounds to audible sounds coming from benign appliances such as refrigerators, say Alec Salt and Jeffery Lichtenhan of Washington University’s school of Medicine, authorities in the field of acoustics. The failure to take infrasound seriously, they state, is “quite astounding … Given the knowledge that the ear responds to low frequency sounds and infrasound, we knew that comparisons with benign sources were invalid and the logic [of relying on audible] sound measurements was deeply flawed scientifically.”

Salt and Lichtenhan have documented the many ways that wind turbine noise can affect the ear, concluding that it is “highly unlikely” that wind turbines don’t present a danger. “Given the present evidence, it seems risky at best to continue the current gamble that infrasound stimulation of the ear stays confined to the ear and has no other effects on the body.”

Their view, and that of other experts in the acoustics field such as Harvard Medical School’s Steven D. Rauch, is that, in the absence of other explanations, it is preposterous to dismiss wind turbines as a cause of wind turbine syndrome (WTS).

“The patients deserve the benefit of the doubt,” says Rauch, who believes that wind turbine syndrome is real. “It’s clear from the documents that come out of the industry that they’re trying very hard to suppress the notion of WTS and they’ve done it in a way that [involves] a lot of blaming the victim.”

Salt, Lichtenhan and Rauch may one day be proven wrong, and wind turbines may be found to be benign. Or wind turbine technology may change, to mitigate or altogether avoid any harmful production of sounds. Until that day comes, the risks from wind turbines are palpable, even if not always audible.

Lawrence Solomon is executive Director of Energy Probe.LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

More Negative Critiques on Health Canada Study! It was a farce!

November 23, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Report avoids wind turbine health woes

Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise “Statistics” Avoid Real Health Problems

Tim Matheson (Nov. 11, 2014) tells us he has had enough of wind turbine health effects. I am sure that the many people living near Ontario’s wind turbines who are still suffering from pounding in the chest and head, dizziness, headaches, ringing in the ears and sleep deprivation have had enough too. However, the serious inaccuracies in Mr. Matheson’s letter must not go without comment. It is entirely untrue, as he claims, that “every peer-reviewed study world-wide has consistently shown the same” as the Health Canada key findings.

Our Grey-Bruce Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Hazel Lynn found 18 peer-reviewed studies that “provide reasonable evidence . . . that an association exists between wind turbines and distress in humans”. Instead of disparaging Dr. Lynn we should admire and respect her for taking the trouble to listen to her constituents and speaking the truth. The Brown County (Wisconsin) Board of Health has taken the growing peer-reviewed evidence seriously enough to declare its industrial wind turbines a “public health nuisance” and a “human health hazard for all people (residents, workers, visitors, and sensitive passers-by) who are exposed to Infrasound/Low Frequency Noise and other emissions potentially harmful to human health”.

There are now dozens of peer-reviewed acoustical and medical research reports that contradict the key findings of the Health Canada study (which has not been peer-reviewed) warning that wind turbines, have a significant potential to cause adverse impacts on the people living nearby. Krough et al (2011), Shepherd (2011), Phillips, (2011), Hanning &. Evans (2012), Nissenbaum (2012), Walker (2012), Ambrose (2012), James (2013), Cooper, (2013), Schomer (2013), Enbom (2013); Kugler 2014, are just a few of the more recent ones.

So how did Health Canada manage to come up with findings so out of line with much of the most recent peer-reviewed research? Could this industry-led, government-supported study have been intended to pacify growing public concern and promote federal government policy– its “Wind Technology Roadmap”?

Already, epidemiologists, physicians and scientists have pointed out grave shortcomings and inconsistencies with the study’s conclusions as well as gaps and errors in methodology.

Contradictions and biases affect its credibility. Unmentioned in the key findings: “The study did find wind turbine noise to be “statistically related to severalself-reported health effects including blood pressure, migraines, tinnitus, dizziness, and disturbed sleep”. — Epidemiologist Joan Morris, Robarts Research Institute, London, Ontario.
The noise “measurements” were in fact only “calculations”, “estimates” and “assumptions”, based on “predictive modeling” obtained from the turbine manufacturers. “It is known that calculated turbine noise is a poor predictor of measured turbine noise. There are other variables that influence the actual turbine noise such as wind-speed gradient, turbulence, upwind or downwind of the wind turbine, [and] temperature gradient. An average has no meaning”. —Dr. John Harrison, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Queen’s University.
The low responder rate of only 1234 out of the 2004 dwellings selected “could easily compromise the validity of any conclusions drawn by the researchers as a result of selection bias”. — Denise Wolfe, professional auditor for drug trial analysis.
Only 20% of the homes studied were “near” turbines; 434 dwellings were excluded as “not valid” (without follow up) because people were not at home, had abandoned their houses, or been bought out—possibly the ones most likely to report serious health effects.
Homes up to 10 kilometres away were included, diluting the results from those nearby. “The choice of the circle size plays a major role in the result obtained and speaks volumes about the motivation of the author”. — Dr. Alex Salt, Professor of Otolaryngology at Washington University School of Medicine.

No, Mr. Matheson, the wind turbines did not shut down coal-fired generation. Nuclear units back on line, decreased consumption, and new natural gas plants (another fossil fuel) made it possible. When fossil-fuelled back-up is factored in, there are no appreciable CO₂ savings from wind energy. Meanwhile, consumer subsidies for renewables in Ontario are pushing up hydro costs at an alarming rate, forcing more manufacturers (and jobs) to leave the province.

Canadian taxpayers will not be pleased to learn that Health Canada has spent over $2 million of our money without first making professional clinical observations based on the histories of actual sufferers.

Keith Stelling, Southampton

References:

Ambrose S.E, Rand, R.W (December 2011), Adverse Health Effects Produced By Large Industrial

Wind Turbines Confirmed, The Bruce McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study.

Arra I, Lynn H, Barker K, et al. (2014-05-23 11:51:41 UTC) Systematic Review 2013: Association

Between Wind Turbines and Human Distress. Cureus 6(5): e183. doi:10.7759/cureus.183.

Bray W and James R. (2011). “Dynamic measurements of wind turbine acoustic signals, employing sound quality engineering methods considering the time and frequency sensitivities of human perception”. Proceedings of Noise-Con 2011, Portland, Oregon, 25-27 July 2011. Curran Associates, 2011.

Cooper, S. The Measurement of Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise for Wind Farms (amended version). 5th International Conference On Wind Turbine Noise Denver 28-30 August 2013. Steven Cooper The Acoustic Group Pty Ltd, Sydney, NSW, 2040.

Enbom H & Enbom I (2013) “Infrasound from wind turbines: An overlooked health hazard,”

Läkartidningen, vol. 110 pp. 1388-89.

Hanning C & Evans A (2012) “Wind turbine noise”, British Medical Journal 344, e1527.

James R. Opening Statement Nov 18, 2013 hearing. BluEarth Project, Bull Creek, Alberta.

Krogh C, Gillis L, N. Kouwen N, and Aramini J. (2011) “WindVOiCe, a self-reporting survey: adverse health effects, industrial wind turbines and the need for vigilance monitoring.” Bull. Sci. Tech. Soc. 31 334-339.

Kugler K, Wiegrebe L, Grothe B, Kössl M, Gürkov R, Krause E, Drexl M. 2014 Low-frequency sound

affects active micromechanics in the human inner ear. R. Soc. open sci. 1: 140166.

Nissenbaum M, Armani J & Hanning D. (2012) “Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health”, Noise and Health 14, 237-243.

Phillips C. (2011) “Properly interpreting the epidemiologic evidence about the health effects of industrial wind turbines on nearby residents”, Bull. Sci. Tech. Soc. 31 303-315.

Salt, Alec N. and Lichtenhan, Jeffery T. “How Does Wind Turbine Noise Affect People? The many ways by which unheard infrasound and low-frequency sound from wind turbines could distress people living nearby are described”. Acoustics Today, A publication of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 10, Issue 1, Winter, 2014.

	How The Climate Grif… on There is NO Global Warming…
	Bob Bateman on Government-Induced Climaphobia…
	William Hooi on Germany’s Renewable Energy Dis…
	Jessica on Issues for Landowners to Consi…
	Raymond on Poorest Families Left Powerles…

"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising…

Children Deserve Protection!

corruption